Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

If it is more lucrative than growing food, does that mean you can buy an equivalent amount of imported food and pocket the profits? If that was the case then it would be an example globalization at work. (note, I don't know if it is)

Similarly, would wealthy khat growers be willing to pay more for food? Since they have more wealth? If so then it would create inflationary pressure on food prices and thus make growing food pay more than it had before.

I can easily imagine that the markets would be imbalanced at first, but it seems the mechanisms would correct that if it is simply more valuable to grow khat.

View on HN

>If it is more lucrative than growing food, does that mean you can buy an equivalent amount of imported food and pocket the profits? If that was the case then it would be an example globalization at work.

If the infrastructure for transporting that food exists, then yes. The problem with relying on food from other countries is that it undermined your (food) security. It's possible that this can be used as a tool in in relations against your country or in the time of a crisis you're more likely to be left hanging. Eg look at all those companies/countries that depend on some important goods from China. During the current crisis the resources in China will be used in China first. Now imagine that same situation, but with food. I think that's why western countries subsidize agriculture so heavily.

If infra for food transportation does not exist then the point is even more valid.

If I have village where no food can be imported and limited amount of agricultural land. If I grow khat how am I going to feed my family if outside food can not come in ? Will the villagers be willing to pay more khat even when food is scarce ? I think I am missing something.

Dry food is extremely easy to transport. For the farmer, they are only growing cash crops if they can sell it outside of village, but if they sell it that means they can also import food.

At worst it might be raising food prices for non farmers, but farmers are going to be strictly better off.

Western countries subsidize agriculture because there are a lot of farmers and they are a powerful voting block. In the US, they are especially influential in low-population states with high senator-to-citizen ratios.

Yeay democracy, I guess.

Are there a lot of farmers in the US? I don't seek it out, but I've read a few times that small family farms are quite rare and most food is produced by huge agribusiness farms

Those agribusiness farms still employee people, and those people vote in the same ways as farmers, even though they may not own a farm

Agriculture is an enormous business in the USA, with 1% of the overall GDP. That may seem small, but consider that all USA industry combined is only 18% of the GDP. Many states in the country depend on agriculture as their #1 product. The USA is an exporter of food, with corn, beans, wheat and beets being the top crops.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com